This is the NFL November-December 2009 Lincoln Douglas resolution. Please only accept if you are willing to follow the Lincoln Douglas format. Due to the LD format, I (the negative) will not be posting an argument this round. The affirmative will lead with his or her constructive speech, after which I will post my constructive. The affirmative has three speeches, the negative two.

Well, I had hoped to debate this in a Lincoln Douglas format, but if my opponent would rather not, I can accept debating it in a more casual format. Thanks to skull95w for accepting my debate.

As my opponent stated, t is true that people can die from disease; however, we need to see that requiring everyone to be immunized is unjust and immoral.

Requiring all to be immunized takes away the liberty of those who wish not to be immunized. Taking away the rights of others invalidates basic rights of humans. John Stuart Mill said: "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." We need to see in this round that Mill was correct, and that we need to negate the resolution in order to more fully deliver liberty to all. My opponent in his sentence seems to be arguing that we need to value having a life over liberty. However, if we have not liberty, then why do we need to have a life?

Sure, one may say that requiring a simple vaccination is not taking away enough liberty for it to be more important than life. However, we need to see that each individual believes in separate and unique ideas and beliefs, and many devote their lives to their ideals. Who are we as a government, a people, a society, to say that their beliefs are strictly wrong and our beliefs are strictly right?

Take the example of all those followers of the Jehovah's Witness faith. Their religion states that vaccines ought not to occur, and to accept vaccination is a sin. This faith also states that only 144,000 people get into heaven. Essentially, if the Jehovah's Witnesses are correct, and they are required to be vaccinated, you are condemning them to Hell. Is this just?

Really, we need to see that we need to negate because if affirmed, the resolution takes away our liberty, takes away our rights, and ultimately imposes a singles belief onto all. We must follow the words of Charles Kingsley when he states, "There are two freedoms - the false, where a man is free to do what he likes; the true, where he is free to do what he ought." We need to see that through affirmation, a man is not free to do what he ought under all circumstances, and negate.

ok have you ever heard of the Spanish influenza? well that killed 50 million people and that's as many people the are in south Korea. and they did not have good heath care. so people are saying that the swine flu is be coming the next Spanish influenza.

My opponent did not refute any of my specific points, so please cross-apply them here.

Moving on to refutation of my opponents argument. In the case of the Spanish Influenza, the national and global health care systems were particularly weak, nowhere near the levels they're at today. No one was vaccinated. It was near impossible to properly treat individuals. The swine flu is nowhere near as deadly as the Spanish influenza, and the health care system, globally, is much stronger. Vaccinations are also already being handed out.

I as the con am not suggesting that no one be vaccinated. I am proving that it isn't justified to mandate immunization for all. We must value liberty over life, and must not impose a single belief upon all. Given that my opponent didn't attack any of these, we must assume he agrees with them. Silence is consent. With that, I beg for a con ballot.

As one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I can tell you that we most certainly accept vaccinations. Next time you post a belief of an organization that could have an influence on someone reading it, you should always post the source. In this case your accusations were not only completely wrong but also very misleading.